[Note: this interview was conducted in Italian. You can read the original text here]
Digital transformation is no longer a distant horizon: it is a reality that companies confront every day, amid enthusiasm, expectations and concrete challenges. In this landscape, management training plays a decisive role in determining organizations’ ability to face change in a conscious and structured way.
We discussed this with Alessandro Petrillo, CEO of H-FARM Business School, the business school of the leading European hub for innovation, education and entrepreneurship, set on 51 hectares just outside Venice. With more than 3,000 people a day – students, executives, entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world – it organizes over 300 events a year, including conferences, workshops and meetings with international leaders.
Melodie Bertoli: During the “Inside the Factory” event, we talked at length about digital self-determination: is it still perceived by managers as a geopolitical issue, or has it already entered the classroom?
Alessandro Petrillo: On average, I’d say it’s more a concern than a subject people are training on. It’s a topic people are informing themselves about, not training on, and the need for training stems from that concern. At H-FARM Business School, it’s a concern for us too, and we are starting to think about the possible ways to address it.
MB: It’s a topic that is beginning to surface on the agenda, but not yet in a consolidated way. Self-determination is a matter of infrastructure, but also of mindset: how can managers be helped to make conscious technological choices, weighing the question of technological independence rather than simply following the best-known vendors?
AP: A distinction needs to be made here. On one hand, it’s a question of the availability of European alternatives; on the other, it’s about awareness of the risks involved in entrusting company data to jurisdictions whose regulatory and protection frameworks are not aligned with European ones.
It’s important to make people understand, through training, what the risks are when distributing one’s data outside the perimeter of the European Community. This is still a topic that isn’t felt strongly, but the current geopolitical context is increasing awareness, even among those who aren’t industry insiders. On this front, schools like H-FARM Business School are beginning to include an awareness component in their programs, addressing the risks of governing information and data.
Then there’s the other side: since the world moves fast, we also need to create credible European alternatives for those who are aware. European hubs are emerging that are starting to make themselves noticed. For example, in the world of humanoids – where leadership today is concentrated among Chinese and American players -there are Italian companies such as Generative Bionics and Oversonic. Generative Bionics is a spin-off of the Italian Institute of Technology that unveiled an Italian humanoid equipped with tactile skin at CES in Las Vegas in January 2026, and has secured the most significant investment round in Europe to date. It’s an excellent signal.
| How exposed is your company to non-European vendors? Mipu has developed the Digital Autonomy Framework: a practical tool to measure your organization’s level of digital autonomy and identify intervention priorities.
|
MB: This shows that in Europe there is momentum to build competitive alternatives, accelerated by a geopolitical situation that makes the need for attention to data preservation self-evident.
AP: Absolutely. Think also of the growing interest in Mistral, an LLM on par with Claude, ChatGPT and DeepSeek, but French. It is accelerating its performance thanks to investments born precisely from the need to maintain European control over extremely sensitive information, reducing dependence on non-EU providers.
MB: Speaking of artificial intelligence applied to the industrial world, what is the most common gap you see between companies’ ambitions and what actually happens in their processes? And how can collaborations between organizations like H-FARM and MIPU help close it?
AP: The most significant and underestimated point is that everyone looks at the output, but if the data fed to the algorithm isn’t reliable, the result won’t be reliable either. “Garbage in, garbage out.” The main problem is the gap in data maturity: people assume clean, labeled datasets exist, but the industrial reality is made up of 1990s PLCs, proprietary SCADA systems, customized ERPs, Excel files used as databases, and organizational silos that prevent access to information.
Before talking about AI, you should look for the “single source of truth.” If you have duplicated or dirty data, you will never understand whether the output depends on the quality of the algorithm or of the data. You first have to stabilize the source of information and then tune the algorithm.
The second gap concerns the ability to select the right use cases: we’re all affected by AI FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out): “If my competitor is doing it, I have to do it too.” But speed risks coming at the expense of identifying the real problem to be solved.
It’s a cultural issue. A recent MIT study on the GenAI Divide found that the vast majority of generative AI initiatives do not deliver measurable benefits—not because the technology isn’t mature, but because the data source and corporate culture aren’t. Companies look for places to apply AI instead of understanding what problems they have. You need to start from the problem statement.
MB: So on one side there is data quality, and on the other the ability to identify where AI can be useful rather than considering other solutions.
AP: Exactly, because methodologically, companies start off on the wrong foot.
H-FARM Business School and MIPU can pool their ability to make companies understand the benefits of technology through data, and then help them reap those benefits. There is a need to train people both on mindset and from a technical standpoint, developing hybrid profiles with both technical and methodological skills.
Another important point is the expectations gap. When you apply AI, you expect an immediate business transformation, but it’s a technology that needs time to mature and to gain organizational acceptance. You must avoid cutting it short before the benefits have materialized; processes and people need time to adapt.
MB: Change management therefore becomes fundamental: not just technology, but mindset. One last question, looking to 2026 and beyond: what worries you most about how companies approach digital training, and what, on the other hand, excites you?
AP: The very thing that excites me also worries me: companies’ enthusiasm.. It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s the engine of transformation: we saw in an internal study, across 9 companies and 28,000 employees, that there is a strong willingness to experiment. On the other hand, enthusiasm can lead to decisions made on instinct rather than through an analytical, structured approach. This risks invalidating the benefits, leading to blaming the technology for what is really a matter of culture or approach. First understand the problem, then figure out whether AI is the answer. It is not a cure-all.
MB: Very interesting. Anything you’d like to add before we close?
AP: I’d close with a reflection. On April 17 and 18, I’ll be in Bari for “Bari Capitale Digitale” giving a talk titled “SOS: Scenari Ottimistici Straordinari” (“SOS: Extraordinary Optimistic Scenarios”). I want to avoid the idea that AI should be thought of only as a problem. It’s true that some companies are reviewing their workforces, but there is also a great deal of good news.
The goal of a Business School is to prepare companies for a world that doesn’t yet exist, so that people don’t become—to quote Alvin Toffler—the “illiterates of the 21st century”: not those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn. We want to offer a mindset that lets people “surf” the tsunami of exponential change.
MB: That changes the approach: from fear of technology to readiness for change.
The interview with Alessandro Petrillo provides a clear and multifaceted picture of the digital transformation underway: a process that cannot be separated from clarity of objectives and a corporate culture ready to embrace change.
